etsy_shop_receipt_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a read operation. The description adds that the tool provides a summary grouped by status, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, data freshness, or scope (e.g., all time vs filtered range).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes value, but it could be expanded with minimal additional context (e.g., output structure) without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, read-only) and lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys the high-level function. However, it omits details about the return format (e.g., list of status-count pairs) which would help an agent anticipate the response. With no output schema, this information would be valuable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The tool description does not add meaning to shop_id (required but undocumented) or explain how min_created/max_created filter the summary. Without param-level enrichment in the description, the agent must infer from the parameter names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets a summary of order/receipt counts by status for a shop. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'summary of order/receipt counts', and the scope 'by status for a shop'. While it distinguishes from siblings like etsy_receipts_list (which returns individual receipts), it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as etsy_receipts_list, etsy_receipt_get, or etsy_shop_receipt_transactions_list. The description implies it is for aggregate counts, but does not state exclusions or specific scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.